Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Rohit Poly Products Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E. Jaipur-I on 12 May, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Appeal No. E/2895/2007-EX(DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 244/07/GRM/CE/JPR-I/2007 dated 13.08.2007 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Jaipur].
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Rohit Poly Products Pvt. Ltd. .Applicants
Vs.
C.C.E. Jaipur-I .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Tangri, CA for the Applicants Ms. Neha Garg, DR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 12.05.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 51973/2016-EX(DB) Per Archana Wadhwa:
As per the facts on record appellant is engaged in manufacture of polythene foam sheets. A fire broke out in their factory on 14.02.2005 causing damage / loss to their main plant, machinery, and raw material etc. The appellant had availed Cenvat Credit of Rs.24.28 lakhs approx on the said plant and machinery as capital goods. The damaged capital goods were subsequently sold by the appellant at a transactional value of Rs.4,94,947/- and duty of Rs.80,775/- was paid upon the same in terms of the provisions of Rule 3 (5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.
The appellant also lodged their claim with the insurance company who granted a claim of Rs.1,53,34,000/-. Revenue by entertaining a view that insurance claim received by the appellant is required to form part of the transaction value of the damaged capital goods sold by them, initiated proceedings resulting in confirmation of demand of duty by the lower authorities. After hearing both the sides we find that the short issue required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the insurance claim received by the assessee in respect of loss of capital goods is to be considered as a part of the transaction value of the subsequently sold damaged capital goods so as to attract duty. We find issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Tribunals decision in the case of Mahendra Sponge & Power Ltd. Vs. CCE Raipur-2015 (329) ELT 399 (Tri-Del) as also in the case of Asil Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Jaipur 2015 (330) ELT 666 (Tri-Del) laying down that duty demand on the insurance claim cannot be held to be sustainable. TO the same effect is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Aurangabad Vs. Jai Bhavani SSK Ltd. 2007-TIOL-1782-Cestat-MUM holding that amount of insurance claim received by the assessee cannot be called as transaction value under section 4 of the Central Excise act by any stretch of imagination so as to call for demand of duty for the same.
2. In as much as the issue stands decided by the above referred decisions of the Tribunal, we find no merits in the Revenues stand. The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
[Dictated and pronounced in the open Court] (B. Ravichandran) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Bhanu 3 E/2895/2007-EX(DB)